But according to the Ministry of Manpower, if you look at the wages of polytechnic and ITE graduates (earning around $2,000 and $1,300 respectively), you can see that their wages would remain stagnant or even drop over the course of their work life.

However, for someone with a degree, he/she is likely to see significant increases in their salaries across the course of their work life.

Thus this means that over time, someone with a degree might see his/her salary rise to an average of $5,000 or so. However, for the other educational levels, the salary would remain stagnant.

And because of the wider disparity, this means that over time, the wage gap in Singapore would rise dramatically. And when compared with other developed countries, not only is the wage gap the widest, it would also be several times more unequal than the next country with the widest wage disparity.

So, what this means is that degree holders in Singapore are also being shortchanged by the PAP government. So, if degree holders are already being shortchanged, this means that diploma and ITE graduates are even worse off!

Thus even though the ASPIRE committee has made recommendations to “deepen the skills” of polytechnic and ITE graduates, the fact that there was no discussion on wage issues is very problematic.

But this is very different from actually increasing the starting salaries of polytechnic and ITE graduates and as long as there is no effort to do this, this would mean that polytechnic and ITE graduates will have to wait several, if not many years, before they are able to see any catch-ups in their salaries. And if they don’t, their salaries will become stagnant or even fall as shown above.

Now, as I have written, at the current CPF interest rates of an average of 3%, a Singaporean would need to earn at least about $2,000 to be able to still buy a flat and retire later on.

And this is only if wages increase by 4% every year. But as you can see above, wages for someone who earns $2,000 is likely to stagnate or drop. This means that if a person wants to earn enough to buy a flat and retire, he/she might even need at least $2,500 or $3,000!

Today, there are 30% of Singaporeans who earn less than $2,000 and 50% of Singaporeans who earn less than $3,000.

Indeed, no wonder Associate Professor Tilak Abeysinghe had calculated that the bottom 30% of households have to spent 105% to 151% of their income, because they simply cannot earn enough to survive.

Similarly, Professor Mukul Asher had also estimated between 27% and 35% of Singaporeans would be living in poverty.

This would mean that Singapore would have the highest poverty rate among the developed countries and one of the highest poverty rate among the Asian countries.

In fact, because of the widest wage disparity, Singapore also has the highest income inequality among the developed countries.

And as I had written before, he PAP government has actually been pushing down the income inequality statistics over each reported period (from 2008 to 2010 to 2013), to create the perception that income inequality is not as high as it actually is in Singapore.

Now, if income inequality is a real problem in Singapore, instead of pretending that income inequality is not a problem by fudging the statistics, shouldn’t there be affirmative action to increase wages at the bottom so as to narrow the wage gap in Singapore?

Shouldn’t the government increase the starting salaries of polytechnic and ITE graduates? So again, why is this missing in the ASPIRE report?

In fact, what is even more disconcerting is that not only is the wage gap the widest in Singapore and not only do Singaporeans earn the lowest wages among the highest-income countries, the rich in Singapore actually earns the highest salaries among the developed countries and one of the highest in the world!

When you look at this in perspective, then something doesn’t seem quite right.

Why are polytechnic and ITE graduates paid the lowest wages when the richest in Singapore pays themselves the highest salaries among the developed countries?

Why does the PAP government create the largest wage gap in Singapore, among the developed countries?

In fact, from 1995, the income share that goes to the richest 10% in Singapore has risen from 30% to 42% in 2011.

And the richest 10% only started to keep getting richer and richer a year after PAP announced that they would peg the salaries of their own ministers to the rich in 1994.

Thereafter, the richest 10% got richer and richer, and the PAP politicians with it.

Not only that, you can see that every time the income inequality rises in one year, the share of income that goes to the rich will rise in the following year – if so, is the high income inequality in Singapore created by the PAP?

Is the PAP interested in ensuring that wages are kept low for non-degree graduates, so that only their cronies can get ahead?

Perhaps it would become clearer when we know that Singapore is actually ranked 5th on The Economist’s crony capitalism index, where it is the 5th easiest for someone to get rich in Singapore if they are affiliated to the PAP.

Now, the very idea of education is to also improve social mobility. But because Singapore has the income inequality among the developed countries, we thus have one of the lowest social mobilities among the developed countries.

So, it is quite clear that as long as the government does not want to actually improve the lot of polytechnic and ITE graduates by actually increasing their wages, no matter what changes the PAP wants to hoodwink Singaporeans with, the end result is that for polytechnic and ITE students, they will continue to be marginalised by the PAP’s policies and it would be difficult for them to move up the social and economic ladder.

In fact, back to the question – which government would encourage its citizens not to get a degree?

As I have written, when you compare Singapore with the other countries, the number of students who enter public universities in Singapore is comparatively lower than other developed countries.

Now, when you look at the Finnish education system for example, for students who choose to study diplomas or vocational institutions (similar to ITE), they can continue to proceed to study polytechnic degrees and even polytechnic master’s degrees.

So, instead of telling you that some people do not like to study academically and thus should not go to a university, the Finnish government actually does it differently and sets up universities that cater to vocational needs, so that all its citizens have an equal opportunity to pursue a degree education, in spite of their academic inclinations.

But when we look back at Singapore and realise how Singaporeans have to pay the second most expensive university tuition fees in the world, this again becomes highly problematic. Where is the equality? Where the poorest families can hardly afford to survive, how can they afford to send their children to university? Is university education being kept to the confines of a self-serving elite who wants to keep a degree education a pedigree for their kind?

Why would the PAP government pay overseas students to get a degree in Singapore but tell Singaporeans that it is not necessary to get a degree?

On top of that, in the agreement that the PAP government has signed with the Indian government, it allows the free-flow of workers from India into Singapore, without any protection for Singaporean workers. It also allows their spouses to freely come to Singapore to work. Does the PAP government also sign such an agreement with other countries to allow workers to come in freely to work as well?

And when the number of migrants coming into Singapore increased, so did the number of Singaporeans who earn less than $1,000.

In fact, it becomes clearer when you look at the proportion of Singaporeans who earn less than $1,000 – it started spiking up in 2004, when the floodgates were opened.

It is thus clear that because of the PAP government’s lax labour policies and unequal wage policies, this has caused a wage depression for the lowest-wage workers.

Has the PAP’s lax labour policies also contributed to the overflow of degree holders into Singapore, which compete with Singaporeans for jobs, and thus the PAP’s sudden about turn to encourage Singaporeans to believe that degrees are not important?

Thus when you look at it as a whole, exactly why does the PAP government suddenly want to encourage Singaporeans to believe that degrees are not important? Doesn’t this fly in the face of logic for a country which wants to advance into the knowledge economy?

Also, even if the government claims that some students might not be academically inclined and should thus go the polytechnic or ITE route, can the government not create polytechnic universities, as the examples of other countries have shown, so that Singaporeans can also receive a university education and get higher pay as well?

In addition, in spite of the government’s changes to the education system, they still have not made affirmative plans to increase the starting salaries of polytechnic and ITE graduates. If the government believes that they do not need a degree and yet it is clear that without a degree, a worker would be stuck with low pay, then shouldn’t the government also increase their starting salaries to account for this?

Otherwise, why stop Singaporeans from getting a university education, when they would otherwise not be able to earn enough to survive in Singapore?

The PAP government’s sudden announcement, with no head or tail, shows a lack of strategic vision as to how they want to shape the education system in Singapore. Why dissuade the pursuit of a university education if we want to advance into a knowledge economy? Why continue to pay low salaries to our polytechnic and ITE graduates, if we do not want them to pursue a university education?

What exactly is on the minds of the PAP government? What exactly are their real intentions behind dissuading Singaporeans from getting a university education? It simply doesn’t make sense. Or is this a knee-jerk response to bad policy planning (as has been shown above with the influx of migrants which depressed wages and increased unemployment, and the agreement with India and the lack of labour protection)?

Indeed, the PAP government might want Singaporeans to believe that Singaporeans do not need a university education, but how many of them would think that it is OK for their children not to go to universities?

If not, it would be very hypocritical for the PAP government to claim otherwise.

#ReturnOurCPF 4 Protest on 27 September 2014

On 27 September 2014, join us at the Hong Lim Park at 4pm at the #ReturnOurCPF 4 protest. Why has the PAP government depressed the wages of Singaporeans, while raising the cost of living in Singapore? How does the PAP government expect Singaporeans to survive, when they refuse to implement a minimum wage to protect Singaporeans?

Join us at the next protest as we speak up against the low wages and high cost of living in Singapore.

In 2013, the total undergraduate enrollment at the NUS and NTU was 49,463. As 14% would be on scholarships, this would mean that 6,925 students would be on scholarships. Since two-thirds of those on scholarships would be foreigners, this means that 4,617 of those on scholarships are foreigners.

Next, since 18% of the students are foreign students, there would be a total of 8,903 foreign students. If 4,617 on them would be on scholarships, this would mean that 52% of the foreign students would be on scholarships.

Also, as only one-third of those are scholarships are Singaporeans, this would mean that only 2,308 Singaporeans would receive scholarships. However, there are 40,560 Singaporean (and PR) students, which means that only 6% of these students were on scholarships (Chart 1).

Chart 1

But, why is it there there are only 6% of Singaporean and PRs on scholarships while 52% of foreigners get to be on scholarships? Also, of the 6% of Singaporean and PR on scholarships, how many of them are actually Singaporeans?

Some commenters have suggested that 52% of foreign students had received scholarships because they might be performing academically better, and might thus have received the bulk of the scholarships.

So, if there were 52% of the foreign students who had received scholarships and 45% of them had obtained second upper class of honours or better, doesn’t this mean that since 32% of Singaporean and PR students had obtained second upper class of honours or better that up to 40% of Singaporean and PR students should be on scholarships (Chart 2)?

Chart 2

Why then are there only 6% of Singaporean and PR students on scholarships, instead of 40%?

Something is terribly amiss here, isn’t it? There are at least 32% of deserving Singaporean students who should be receiving scholarships but who are not given a fair chance at it. Meanwhile, the PAP government has chosen to give scholarships to the foreign students, instead of deserving and needy Singaporean students instead!

Thus if there would be 32% of Singaporean students who would be deserving of a scholarship, based on how MOE had apportion the scholarships to foreigners, and if there would be 28% of Singaporeans who would need financial assistance, then why is it that only 6% of Singaporean and PR students are able to obtains scholarships?

Why has the PAP government made it so easy for the foreign students to receive scholarships but for equally deserving Singaporean students, they are made to pay their own way and have to graduate “with an average debt of about $20,000“?

Don’t you think that something is severely wrong here?

Majority Of Unemployed Singaporeans Are Tertiary-Educated Who Face Unbridled Competition

As I’ve written, among the unemployed workers in Singapore, a massive proportion of them are tertiary-educated Singaporeans. If this is the case, shouldn’t the MOE’s responsibility be first to grow the pool of tertiary-educated Singaporean students, and reimburse them first and foremost before giving scholarships to foreigners? Shouldn’t the PAP government build a core of tertiary-educated Singaporeans, instead of importing and funding for the education of foreign students, while leaving Singaporean students to fend for themselves, and causing burgeoning unemployment among the tertiary-educated workers in Singapore?

Is this how the PAP government should be treating Singaporeans – Singaporeans who have a stake in our country and who would need the support from the government to receive adequate education and then contribute back to Singapore?

Why is the PAP government not supporting Singaporeans but is instead giving away money to foreign students – in the hope that they would stay and contribute to Singapore?

I would be proud if my government is able to treat people in our neighbouring countries with respect and readily extend our support to them. However, when the PAP government isn’t even able to look out for its own citizens, but would choose to look out for the citizens of another country first, isn’t something not quite right here?

Where is the responsibility of the PAP government? Singaporeans – or rather 60.1% – had voted for the PAP because we expect the PAP to be able to look out for the needs of Singaporeans, but why is their priority on foreigners and not on Singaporeans?

The PAP Government Doesn’t Protect Singapore

This wouldn’t be the first case of the PAP government looking out for foreigners instead of Singaporeans. As I’ve also written, in the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) that Singapore had signed with India, there are clauses which protect the rights of Indian workers to work in Singapore because the Singapore government is not allowed to “require labour marketing testing” for the entry of these workers. Singapore is also required to “grant the accompanying spouses or dependent of the other Party the right to work as managers, executives or specialists.”

Also, there are no levies or quotas to the hiring of workers on Employment Passes and in the Fair Consideration Framework that the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) had introduced, because the MOM had said that it “does not review the merits of a firm’s hiring decision, as the firm is best placed to decide on which candidate can do the job,” which would mean that this “framework” – and not a law – wouldn’t protect Singaporean workers as well.

So, from all these policy decisions by the PAP government, it is clear that they do not seem to be interested in protecting Singaporeans, even as Singaporeans are equally deserving or in need of assistance from the government that we had voted in, precisely to help us for. Yet, the PAP government seems to have relegated it’s responsibilities, in not providing enough scholarships for Singaporean students, and in not enacting adequate policies and laws to protect the employment of Singaporean workers.

As a Singaporean, I am very worried. If the government that the majority of Singaporeans have voted for has chosen not to perform its duty and responsibility, then who else do we have to look to, to protect our lives and livelihood? Should we ask the Malaysian or Indonesian government to take care of us instead?

If the PAP government is not able to perform its duty as its elected responsibility, should we then vote to put in other parties in government who would actually perform their duty and protect the rights and needs of Singaporeans?

I am very worried now. Are you?

*****

If you are inspired to want to discuss more about how we can change the education system in Singapore, you can join other Singaporeans at this upcoming workshop to design solutions to make the education system more equal in Singapore.

But do you know that Singapore’s PTR for primary education is actually one of the highest among the high-income countries, and countries which did well in the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) rankings (Chart 1) – which means that we have more students to each teacher.

But does this mean that each class in a primary school has 18 students and each class in a secondary school has 14 students?

It does not, because it was also revealed that, “a PTR of 18 in our primary schools does not mean that our class sizes are 18 in our primary schools – it simply means that we have one teacher for every 18 students”. The government added that, “The same PTR can result in different class sizes – as it depends on how we deploy our teachers.” The government goes on to say that, “if we choose to deploy our teachers in classes of 18 students each, it would imply that all our teachers would have to be teaching a class all the time”. They claim that, “This is clearly not tenable.”

There is really no point in telling Singaporeans that the PTR is 18 and 14 for primary and secondary schools respectively, when this does not translate into any useful changes in the classroom setting. It is very different when our classes actually have more than twice the reported PTR. Isn’t this misleading?

What’s more, when you compare Singapore’s class sizes with the other high-income countries and even some developing countries, you will see that no other country has class sizes bigger than Singapore’s – no other country has class sizes bigger than 30 in primary education and 40 in the secondary education (Chart 3)!

Indeed, this is a real issue. In the The Global Competitiveness Report 2013–2014 report, employers have voted the insufficient capacity to innovate as one of “the most problematic factors for doing business” in Singapore (Chart 5).

What’s happening in Singapore is very worrying. We might be churning out certificates after certificates. But do our children learn the necessary critical thinking skills that allow them to be flexibly-thinking workers for the knowledge economy? Does the education system allow our students to focus on their personal development, so that they grow up as well-rounded individuals?

It might be time we start rethinking about whether the Singapore government needs to invest even more resources into education, to ensure that our students do not only achieve the outcomes as measured by their performance during the examinations, but that they are well-equipped with the thinking and rationalisation skills required as Singapore moves towards the new era.

As I had written before, would the PAP government be willing to do so, or is it in their favour to believe that the “elite” system needs to be protected? As long as our education system is not equal, the opportunities to create a more intensive and rounded education system will be difficult to materialise in Singapore.

*****

If you are inspired to want to discuss more about how we can change the education system in Singapore, you can join other Singaporeans at this upcoming workshop to design solutions to make the education system more equal in Singapore.

As I had discussed, it is irrelevant and illogical for the PAP ministers to dissuade Singaporeans from pursuing a university degree, when the outcomes of being a university or polytechnic graduate is immense – the starting pay of university graduates is $3,000, while that of a polytechnic graduate is $2,000.

But, how does their starting pay compare with the other high-income countries? Perhaps things are not that bad for Singapore, we might think? Let’s take a look.

For the first comparison, the starting pay for university graduates is taken to be $3,000, and that for polytechnic graduates is at $2,000. I will use the estimate of $1,300 for workers with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education, and $800 for workers with below upper secondary education (Chart 1).

Chart 1

When you compare the starting pay of workers of the different education levels in Singapore with the other countries, you will see that university graduates (dark blue bars) in Singapore earns the highest wages relative to someone with a below upper secondary education (grey bars) (Chart 2)!

As I had discussed, the pay of a polytechnic graduate, and that of someone with post-secondary education and below upper secondary education, is likely to stay stagnant or decrease over their lifetime – for workers who earn a starting pay of $2,000 or below, you can see that their pay would stay stagnant or decline over time. However, for a university graduate (someone who earns $3,000 and above), their pay is likely dramatically increase – the pay for a person who earns $3,000 rises over time (Chart 4).

As such, to look at the next comparison, we can assume that across the different age groups, the median wage for a polytechnic graduate will remain at $2,000, but for a university graduate, the median wage would increase to about $5,000, as an estimate. Workers with post-secondary-educated workers will also see their median wage remain at $1,300 and that for below upper secondary education, it will also remain at $800 (Chart 5).

Chart 5

Thus when we look at the comparison of the wages of Singaporeans with the other countries across the age groups, once again, we would see that university graduates (dark blue bars) would earn a higher wage, relative to someone with a below upper secondary education (grey bars), and not only that, the disparity widens – because university graduates are most likely to be the only ones who will see significant pay increases over their lifetime (Chart 6)!

The question we have to ask is – why are the wage levels in Singapore pegged so closely to the educational levels? But perhaps the more important question to ask is – why are the different educational levels of such differing “standards” that the wage for the different educational levels are so distinctly separate?

Is this a policy decision to alleviate the status of a university education, while delineating that of a polytechnic education, and even further marginalising those without either a university or polytechnic education?

Again, PM Lee might have said that, “every school is a good school“, but why are the so-called-“equally”-good schools created with such differential standards, and consequently pay the graduates so differently? Or are these differential standards a policy decision to segregate Singaporeans?

But what’s more – do you know that Singapore already pays the workers here the lowest wages (Chart 12)? That means that for a low wage worker, he or she would be paid the worst among all the high-income countries. Not only that, the wages of university graduates have also been depressed in Singapore.

The problem of wage depression is thus one that strikes all Singaporean workers.

So, the final question we have to ask ourselves is – why are the other countries able to pay more equitable wages for their workers? Why are the workers in other countries more equally valued than in Singapore? Also, why do workers with equivalent educational qualifications in other high-income countries paid higher wages than Singaporeans as well? Mind you, Singapore has the highest GDP per capita, so why is it that poorer countries are able to pay higher wages to their citizens, but Singapore cannot?

As I had written about, the wage inequality that persists in our country is one that has its roots in the education system – our people are divided early on in life into the different educational pathways that the system has deemed them to fit, and this carries on until later on in life, where they continue to be stuck in their fixed roles and earn a predetermined salary.

However, does a government – any government for that matter – has a right to predetermine or decide how the abilities of its people should be destined? Should the PAP government sculpt the system to such an extend that the role that we are conferred with early on in life would predominantly stick with us for the rest of our lives?

Why did the PAP government operate with the planning parameters that sees it necessary to demarcate schools in unequal terms, and to have such unequal wage patterns? If so, is “every school (truly) a good school”, or is this only lip service?

Singaporeans have a right to know the planning parameters that the PAP government uses in planning our education system and job market. Singaporeans have a right to know why our education system has such unequal outcomes, and why our wages are also so unevenly distributed. If most Singaporeans are asked if they believe that such inequality should exist in the system, the most likely answer would be an affirmative, “NO”.

Indeed, is it in Singapore’s and Singaporeans’ interest to continue to see such widening inequality in Singapore? Is it in our long term interests to see such an unequal education system and job market pull our society apart, which can lead to intangible problems down the road, of distrust among the people, and a sense of disempowerment for Singaporeans who are seemingly left behind?

*****

If you are inspired to want to discuss more about how we can change the education system in Singapore, you can join other Singaporeans at this upcoming workshop to design solutions to make the education system more equal in Singapore.

Share this:

Like this:

In the previous article, I had discussed if the government has planned for the education system to prepare adequately for Singapore’s economy.

In this article, I will zoom down to a specific issue – on the readiness of the education system to prepare for the healthcare needs in Singapore.

In brief:

Singapore has the lowest number of physicians per 10,000 population among the developed countries.

Singapore is training one of the lowest number of medical graduates per 100,000 population among the high-income countries.

Is the reason why we have the lowest number of physicians because the PAP government spends the lowest % of GDP on health, as compared to the other developed countries, and one of the lowest in the world?

Is the reason why we have one of the lowest number of medical graduates because the PAP government spends the lowest % of GDP on education, as compared to the other high-income countries?

Why does the PAP government spend the lowest on health and education even though Singapore is one of the richest countries, by GDP per capita, in the world?

According to the MOE, “It would also be in Singapore’s interests to ensure a good spread of talent across all disciplines at the tertiary-level to benefit other sectors in our economy.”

I am not quite sure what the MOE means when they said that they would want to “ensure a good spread of talent”. Two weeks ago, I had written about how, of the students who were able to enter the Architecture, Dentistry, Law and Medicine courses at the National University of Singapore (NUS) and the Singapore Management University of Singapore (SMU), only 2% were polytechnic graduates (Chart 1).

I would be interested to understand why the MOE does not believe that the Medicine (and other) faculty would benefit from a “good spread of talent” from the polytechnic graduates.

The government had also said that, “MOH is currently studying Singapore’s medium and long-term health-care needs carefully and their implications on demand for medical manpower. MOE will work with MOH to determine how we can meet the projected demand for medical manpower.”

Thus does Singapore have a shortage of doctors? Doesn’t this mean that the MOE and MOH are severely under-projecting “the demand for medical manpower”? And is the PAP government not opening up enough spaces in our universities to train more doctors for the growing needs of our ageing population?

Indeed, when compared with the other countries, Singapore produces the second lowest number of medical graduates per 100,000 population, after the United States (Chart 4) (Singapore’s figure is derived from the number of medical graduates of 354 divided by 53.124, or the total Singapore population of 5,312,400 divided by 100,000).

Thus it is sufficiently clear that the reason why there are a shortage of doctors in Singapore is because of the low enrollment of medical students into our universities. The question to ask is, why has the PAP government severely under-projected the number of doctors and medical students sorely needed in Singapore’s healthcare system?

Already, we are hearing of stories where because there are not enough doctors and healthcare facilities, that there have been cases where people would have to wait for months before they are able to make an appointment, or to wait at the Accident & Emergency department for many hours before they are attended to. There have also been cases where patients have died and where their families have attributed it to the lack of care at the hospitals. Or when doctors have been so busy that the care was forced to be slipshod, such that patients had been wrongly diagnosed, or that not enough care was given and patients had to returned to the hospital.

But this is only the tip of the iceberg. There have been many cases where people have to sell their homes to pay for healthcare. There have also been many unreported cases where patients choose to postpone care because they are too poor to seek medical assistance, and end up developing chronic illnesses, which require even more expensive care and treatment.

But why does all this have to happen?

Because the PAP government spends the lowest on health, as compared to the other high-income countries (Chart 5).

Evidently, the PAP government is severely underspending on healthcare and education – the long term implications are such that on a structural level, our health system will have a chronic shortage of doctors and healthcare facilities. Singaporeans will also not be able to receive the adequate care required.

So, does Singapore need to spend more on education to train more doctors for the health system? Does Singapore need to spend more on health to increase the number of doctors and healthcare facilities for the growing population? I think the answer in an unequivocal yes.

However, the question is – does the PAP have the will to see these changes happen. Or, rather, is it not in the PAP’s interest to increase spending in these areas which they perceive as not contributing to the economy?

*****

If you are inspired to want to discuss more about how we can change the education system in Singapore, you can join other Singaporeans at this upcoming workshop to design solutions to make the education system more equal in Singapore.

Things are even clearer when you look back to 1985 – from having one of the lowest unemployment rate among the high-income countries then, Singaporeans with tertiary education now face the highest unemployment (Chart 2).

But do you know that even though we have one of the highest proportion of tertiary educated people in Singapore, the proportion of Singaporeans enrollment into local public universities is actually one of the lowest? Singapore actually has one of the lowest enrollment into public universities, as compared to the other high-income countries.

Thus if there is comparatively so much fewer students going into local public universities but there is such a massive proportion of people with tertiary education in Singapore, then where is this huge additional pool of tertiary-educated workers coming from?

Also, these workers have “been allowed to bring in their spouses or dependants (and Singapore is required to)… grant the accompanying spouses or dependent of the other Party the right to work as managers, executives or specialists.” (Chart 6)

Of course, it wouldn’t be illogical to assume that India would not be the only country where such clauses exist to protect foreign workers over Singaporean workers. Of the other agreements that Singapore had signed with the other countries, which other agreement would also allow for such an easy entry for their workers to compete with the Singaporean workers in the job sector of “managers, executives or specialists” – jobs which Singaporean PMETs also take on, but would thus face significant competition due to the lax border policy?

(2) The Lack Of Levies And Quotas For The Employment Pass Disadvantage Singaporeans

Thus as there are no levies or quotas to hire workers on E Passes, there is no restriction or disincentive for companies to hire foreign workers over Singaporeans in positions which require a degree – and this would necessarily put Singaporeans at a disadvantage. Has this contributed to the over-influx of tertiary-educated workers and the resultant high unemployment?

Third, the PAP government had recently announced the Fair Consideration Framework which they would like to use to “persuade” employers to consider Singaporeans fairly before hiring Employment Pass (EP) holders”.

Playing our role in educating our friends from neighbouring countries is a role that Singapore can admirably perform but the question to ask is – if there are also deserving Singaporean students for scholarships, why is it that only less than 6% of Singaporeans are on scholarships, when 52% of foreigners are on scholarships? And if there is already a saturation of degree holders in Singapore, shouldn’t the PAP government focus on grooming the students in Singapore instead of creating a glut of degree holders in Singapore, by importing even more foreign students in Singapore, who eventually compete in jobs that Singaporeans are losing?

This is no wonder that Lee, Khaw and Chan would go to such great extent just to convince Singaporeans that a polytechnic diploma is a more viable “option” than a university degree – there is growing unemployment among tertiary-educated Singaporeans but instead of managing the inflow of foreign students and workers in Singapore, they have instead asked Singaporeans not to further their education. Is this what a responsible government should do?

What this means is that if the PAP is serious about wanting Singaporeans to see a polytechnic diploma as a viable “option”, they would also need to ensure that Singaporeans are paid wages that are also “viable” to the standard of living in Singapore.

Finally, the more important question is not whether Singapore should produce more university graduates but whether our graduates have the skills and flexibility to work in the labour market?

Indeed, in the The Global Competitiveness Report 2013–2014 report, when compared to the other high-income countries, among the “most problematic factors for doing business”, a higher proportion of employers voted on Singapore as having the most insufficient capacity to innovate (Chart 9).

To sum up, the increasing unemployment among tertiary-educated Singaporeans can also be attributed to the lax agreements that Singapore had signed with other countries and the labour policies enacted that can be exploited through the inherent loopholes. The solution would be to ensure that the agreements and labour policies provide stringent protection for Singaporean workers.

However, it is clear that the PAP government is resistant to do so. As such, they have decided to take the easy way out to persuade Singaporeans not to take university degrees. But this is at the expense of educating your own citizens and strengthening the local core and pool of tertiary-educated Singaporeans. It is surprising that the PAP government would be willing to compromise on the people’s education and Singapore’s long term future – a core population that is weakened in their education will threaten the foundation that prop Singapore up.

Lee, Khaw and Chan have not addressed the right question when they try to persuade Singaporeans to see polytechnic education as a viable “option”. Just because there is increasing unemployment among tertiary-educated Singaporeans doesn’t mean that the immediate solution should be to reduce the number of tertiary-educated enrollment. This is short-sighted, a knee-jerk reaction and not well-thought through.

And if you look back all the way to 1985, you can see that the unemployment rate among tertiary-educated Singaporeans have been on the upward trend since 1985 – from having one of the lowest unemployment rate among tertiary-educated Singaporeans, we now have the highest unemployment (Chart 4).

If you look at the proportion of Singaporeans who have primary education, the proportion has actually dropped – which might explain the decline in unemployment among primary-educated Singaporeans (Chart 5).

Finally, when you look at the proportion of people in Singapore who have tertiary education, you can see that the proportion of people here with tertiary education actually shot up dramatically (Chart 7)!

Does this thus explain why there is also a dramatic rise in the unemployment rate among tertiary-educated Singaporeans as well?

Also, these workers have “been allowed to bring in their spouses or dependants (and Singapore is required to)… grant the accompanying spouses or dependent of the other Party the right to work as managers, executives or specialists.” (Chart 10)

So, do you know where our jobs are going now? Of course, it would not be illogical to assume that India would not be the only country where such clauses exist to protect foreign workers over Singaporean workers. Of the other agreements that Singapore had signed with the other countries, which other agreement would also allow for such an easy entry for their workers to compete with the Singaporean workers in the job sector of “managers, executives or specialists”?

(2) The Lack Of Levies And Quotas For The Employment Pass Disadvantage Singaporeans

Thus as there are no levies or quotas to hire workers on E Passes, there is no restriction or disincentive for companies to hire foreign workers over Singaporeans in positions which require a degree – and this would necessarily put Singaporeans at a disadvantage. Has this contributed to the over-influx of tertiary-educated workers and the resultant high unemployment?

Third, the PAP government had recently announced the Fair Consideration Framework which they would like to use to “persuade” employers to consider Singaporeans fairly before hiring Employment Pass (EP) holders”.

The question to ask is – if there are also deserving Singaporean students for scholarships, why is it that only less than 6% of Singaporeans are on scholarships, when 52% of foreigners are on scholarships? And if there is already a saturation of degree holders in Singapore, shouldn’t the PAP government focus on grooming the students in Singapore instead of creating a glut of degree holders in Singapore, by importing even more students into Singapore?

This is no wonder that Lee, Khaw and Chan would go to such great extent just to convince Singaporeans that a polytechnic diploma is a more viable “option” than a university degree.

And so, they have proclaimed in unison that polytechnic diplomas are good on their own right.

Also, I had estimated that the proportion of Singaporeans living in poverty is 28% – the poverty line has been defined by the National University of Singapore Social Work Department as being half of median income, or $3,000. This means that at the poverty line of $1,500, polytechnic graduates are earning just above the poverty line. Of course, for Singaporeans without a degree or diploma, you can imagine how worse off life can be for them in Singapore.

But what is also of concern isn’t just the starting pay of polytechnic graduates, but of how their pay will pan out over their lifetime.

This means that only 30% of Singaporeans with the highest likelihood of entering university will ever see their lot get better in life – because of the higher pay, whereas for the rest of the 70% of Singaporeans, they will struggle to barely survive, or not even be able to survive adequately in Singapore.

The PAP Government Needs To Pay Fair Wages

What this means is that if the PAP is serious about wanting Singaporeans to see a polytechnic diploma as a viable “option”, they would also need to ensure that Singaporeans are paid wages that are also “viable” to the standard of living in Singapore.

Indeed, for Singaporeans to be earning wages that are in tandem with the cost of living in Singapore, we should be earning a median pay of about $6,000, or twice the current median wage – similar to that of the other similarly high-income countries. This would mean that degree holders should have a starting pay of $6,000, and at the current peg, that diploma holders should be earning $5,000.

Yet, does this mean that the university population in Singapore cannot go on increasing?

But the other important question is this – it is not just whether Singapore should produce more university graduates but whether our graduates have the skills and flexibility to work in the labour market? Indeed, the Ministry of Education has also recognised the need for the education system to “incorporate a broad-based education into higher education to develop higher order thinking and soft skills,” as well as to emphasise “on the importance of multidisciplinary learning and critical thinking skills that would better equip students for the future”.

However, it is perhaps worrying that Singaporeans perceive creativity and risk-taking as values that are less important – a by-product of the rote-based learning education system in Singapore (Chart 15)?:

In fact, most damningly, in the The Global Competitiveness Report 2013–2014 report, when compared to the other high-income countries, among the “most problematic factors for doing business”, a higher proportion of employers voted on Singapore as having the most insufficient capacity to innovate (Chart 16).

Lee, Khaw and Chan have not addressed the right question when they try to persuade Singaporeans to see polytechnic education as a viable “option”. Just because there is increasing unemployment among tertiary-educated Singaporeans doesn’t mean that the immediate solution should be to reduce the number of tertiary-educated enrollment. This is short-sighted, a knee-jerk reaction and not well-thought through.

Evidently, the increasing unemployment among tertiary-educated Singaporeans is due to several factors. If the agreements that Singapore had signed with other countries and the labour policies enacted can be exploited through the inherent loopholes, then the solution is to ensure that the agreements and labour policies provide stringent protection for Singaporean workers. However, it is clear that the PAP government is resistant to do so. As such, they have decided to take the easy way out to persuade Singaporeans not to take university degrees. But this is at the expense of educating your own citizens and strengthening the local core and pool of tertiary-educated Singaporeans. It is surprising that the PAP government would be willing to compromise on the people’s education and Singapore’s long term future – a core population that is weakened in their education will threaten the foundation that prop Singapore up.

In persuading Singaporeans not to pursue university education, the PAP government has also chosen to sideline the issue of wages. If Singaporeans do not pursue a university education, the wages that they would receive for the rest of their lifetime would be barely sufficient for a respectable standard of living in Singapore. The question is, why are wages and job types structured along only educational lines – such artificial demarcation will only entrench the differences and thus wage differentiation, and result in growing disparity, as has happened in Singapore. There is a need to relook how wages are pegged at, and the weightage their education qualifications should play in this. Again, is the PAP willing to do so?

Finally, as the MOE had also realised that there is a need to provide “multiple progression pathways and options for students, making the institution more attractive to prospective applicants“. Instead of the PAP ministers saying that Singaporeans should opt not to enter universities, the more apt response would be to look at how universities can be made more relevant to the needs of Singaporeans and to the job market. The MOE had noted that, “in Finland, the government expanded the higher education sector by creating a distinct tier of polytechnics/universities of applied sciences (UAS),… (where) their mission was clearly defined as providing vocational and professional training for labour market and industry needs… Students would typically graduate with a Bachelor degree after three to four years of study.” Thus there is a need to relook our understanding of what a university education means, and how it can be redesigned to not only expand the opportunities for Singaporeans, but to ensure that a university will continue to be relevant to the job market.

Like this:

I will be direct: Singaporeans pay the highest university tuition fees, we receive one of the least scholarships, as compared to the other high-income countries and we also have one of the fewest students who are able to enroll into universities. Welcome to Uniquely Singapore.

Last week, I had written about how the Singapore education system is unequal. A student who goes to a “top” school will have an almost indefinite chance of entering one of the three local public universities in Singapore. However, for a student who goes to a polytechnic, the chances of going into these universities will be next to zero, literally. Why are these statistics so determinate – is this a intended policy decision to delineate a segment of Singaporeans?

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong might claim that, “every school is a good school”. He had also said that, “we value every child and that we want to give every person the best possible chance to start off well in life”. But as we have seen, the students in Singapore have the lowest progression into secondary education, as compared to the other high-income countries, and countries which have done well in the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) rankings. This might also be because Singapore spends the lowest on education as compared to these countries, and we also invest one of the lowest in our primary and secondary students. How then is every school a “good school” and how does every Singapore have “the best possible chance to start off well in life”?

PM Lee might also say that he doesn’t believe in having a, “closed, self-perpetuating elite”, but what do the statistics say? We have a clearly elitist and unequal education where a large proportion of our Singaporean students fall out of the education system.

As was also discussed, most students who enter public universities are more likely to have come from high-income households and students from low-income households in Singapore have a lower chance of going into the public universities.

So, is it perfectly normal for university students to pay such high fees? If we want to get a “high” education, we should be willing to pay more, right? And the almost annual increases should be accepted if we want to have a decent university education, right?

How much we have been deceived.

On average, if you include the enrollment of the students, I calculated that the average university tuition fee is about S$8,760. In US dollars, this would be US$7,016.

And how does Singapore compare with the other high-income countries? You guessed it! Singaporeans pay one of the highest tuition fees among the rich countries – the second highest in fact, after Ireland (Chart 1). Even in the United States and Australia, their students there only pay US$5,402 and US$3,924 respectively. Not only that, for countries like Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, students do not even need to pay tuition fees!

So, again, I did a bit more calculation – the total undergraduate enrollment in the NUS and NTU is 49,463. If 14% of the undergraduates are on scholarships, this would mean that 6,925 students would be on scholarships. Since one-third of the scholars are locals, then two-thirds would be foreigners. This would mean that there were 4,617 foreigners who are on scholarships, and only 2,308 Singaporeans on scholarships.

If there were 4,617 foreigners on scholarships out of the total number of 8,903 foreign students, this would mean that 52% of the foreign student population is on scholarships!

But wait a minute, didn’t the MOE said that 14% of the undergraduates at NUS and NTU are on scholarships?

Only 6% Of Singaporean Undergraduates Receive Scholarships

Brace yourself now – the total Singaporean (and PR) undergraduate population is 40,560. And if only 2,308 Singaporean students are on scholarships, as was calculated above, this would mean that only 6% of Singaporeans are on scholarships!

So, the MOE might claim that 14% of the undergraduates are on scholarships, but most of the scholarships are not going to Singaporeans! In fact, only 6% of Singaporeans are able to receive scholarships!

Chart 2

Chart 3

How does this compare to the other countries, right? Maybe it’s not that bad, right? OK, let’s see.

When compared the other high-income countries, for our Singaporean students, we have the lowest proportion of students who are able to go on scholarships (Chart 4).

So, as if it’s not already bad enough that Singaporeans already pay the second-highest tuition fees, we are also given the lowest amount of support!

Last but not least, because Singaporeans are made to pay one of the highest university fees among the high-income countries and our students also have the lowest proportions who are able to receive scholarships, is this the reason why we also have one of the lowest enrollment of our students into university education (Chart 5)?

So, let me put things into a bit of perspective here – Singaporeans are given the lowest wages but yet we are expected to pay the second-highest tuition fees for university. Not only that, our students have the lowest proportions who are able to receive scholarships. Yet, we have one of the richest, if not, the richest government in the world, and the PAP government doesn’t want to give more to help Singaporeans achieve a higher education.

By now, you can clearly see that first, the Singapore education system is highly unequal where only 30% of the students have the highest chances of entering the university. But not only that, when they enter university, only 6% of the Singaporean students are able to receive scholarships, even though more than half the foreign student population are able to receive scholarships. In the end, much fewer of our students are able to enter university, as compared to the other high-income countries.

Also, the poverty rate in Singapore is much higher than in any of the high-income countries and countries in the region as well – countries which the PAP government is awarding scholarships to (Chart 12).

So, why does the PAP government allow university tuition fees to keep increasing yet not provide more financial support for Singaporeans? Why does the PAP government allow Singaporeans to sink into debt, yet pay Singaporeans the lowest wages, and not put in a minimum wage to protect the wages of the workers?

Why does the PAP government insist on earning off the people of Singapore, instead of allow Singaporeans to receive an equal education and one where all Singaporeans have equal access to? Why are some students intentionally kept out of university? Why are students made to shoulder a heavy burden of education, when the PAP government does its minimal to ensure that “every person (has) the best possible chance to start off well in life”. Then what does Lee Hsien Loong means when he said that, “we value every child”?

Our children are being disadvantaged early on in life. When you start to think that your lot in life might be caused by the PAP government, it is not a suspicion. It’s the reality – the statistics have confirmed your worse fears.

Lee Hsien Loong might say that he does not believe in having a “closed, self-perpetuating elite”. But what are the statistics clearly showing? Why does Singapore have such an unequal education system, and why does the PAP government want to create such an unequal education system?

Note: Chart 1 and 4 have been amended with the relevant statistics. I would like to thank readers for pointing out the changes required. Thank you.

*****

If you are inspired to want to discuss more about how we can change the education system in Singapore, you can join other Singaporeans at this upcoming workshop to design solutions to make the education system more equal in Singapore.

Also, “about 17% (of students from Independent Schools) live in 4-room HDB flats or smaller.” However, among the general population, there is a higher proportion of low-income households, where 56.5% of Singapore residents living in 1- to 4-room flats. Yet, only 17% of the students in the Independent Schools live in 1- to 4-room flats (Chart 7).

So, PM Lee might say that, “every school is a good school”. Then, what happened? Why is the reality so different?

Perhaps Vice-Principal Pushparani Nadarajah had hit the nail on the head – do “our leaders and top officers” even dare to put “their children in ordinary schools near their home”? Does Lee Hsien Loong even buy his own rhetoric that “every school is a good school”?

But, why are things so uneven in Singapore? Perhaps the following statistics will show you why:

Do you know that the PAP government spends the least on education (as a % of GDP), as compared to the high income countries (Chart 11).

What’s happening to the Singapore education system? Why are things so unequal? Why do some students get ahead while other students are prevented from getting ahead?

PM Lee might say that, “we value every child and that we want to give every person the best possible chance to start off well in life,” and that, “I believe we can make every school a good school and we have done a lot of that to ensure that every school provides a good education for the students. We give them the resources, we give them the good teachers, we emphasise values and we have made a lot of progress towards this goal.” But is each school really treated equally?

PM Lee might also say that, “outstanding students must always be able to make it to the top to get into these institutions and you cannot have a closed, self-perpetuating elite.”

But what is he talking about when the statistics show clearly that there is a “closed-self-perpetuating elite”?

The system in Singapore has become very unequal. We are beginning to see the cracks in a system which has become so divisive and unequal that some Singaporeans are falling through the cracks. Education is the cornerstone to any society that can advance and progress. And I am afraid that the PAP government might not be doing enough to prevent these cracks from opening, and to prevent Singaporeans from falling through these cracks.

It is very, very unfortunate.

*****

If you are inspired to want to discuss more about how we can change the education system in Singapore, you can join other Singaporeans at this upcoming workshop to design solutions to make the education system more equal in Singapore.

Share this:

Like this:

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had said at the National Day Rally 2013 that the PAP government will, “do more to keep paths upwards wide open to all. Keeping paths wide open has been a fundamental principle for Singapore for a very long time. It is how we have enhanced our human potential. How we have created hope for every Singaporean and is especially true in education and that is why we have invested in pre-school, adding 20,000 places in the next five years as I said just now in Chinese.”

He also said that, “Whichever school you go to, whichever class or principal you have, you will get a good education. And we give every school the teachers, the resources, the backing. We help many of our schools develop niches of excellence. We make sure that the whole system is of a high standard. Every school is a good school.”

How true is this? Let’s take a look at the statistics to find out. In the comparison statistics below, I have included the countries of a similar high-income level to Singapore, as well as the countries which have done well in the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) rankings, an international survey which evaluate education systems worldwide.

But when you look at Chart 2, you can see even though the PAP government spends the lowest % of GDP on education, they actually spent the highest % of total government expenditure on education – more than 20%.

Why is this the case? According to Mr Heng, he explained that, “While OECD countries and other top performing education systems (as measured by PISA) spend between 4 – 7% of GDP on education, but because their governments tax and spend more as a percentage of GDP, expenditure on education makes up, on average, only about 13% of their government expenditure – significantly less than Singapore.”

The key phrase is this – “their governments … spend more”. In the other high-income countries, because their governments spend more money on their citizens, even as the expenditure on education is high, it still makes up a smaller proportion of the total government expenditure, as compared to Singapore.

But the issue isn’t in so much as to how much the government spends on education. The issue is whether the money is fairly distributed to Singaporeans.

Take a look at Chart 3 – Singapore actually spends the lowest % of GDP on primary education.

We are spend the one of the lowest among the high-income countries on secondary education – at PPP$8,948 (Chart 7). Most of the rest of the countries which spend a lower amount are the Asian countries which have a significantly lower national income than Singapore.

But why is there such a discrepancy? Why are we spending so little on primary education, but investing more significantly on tertiary education?

It might not be immediately apparent that the spending in Singapore is uneven and results in an unequal education system. So, let’s take a look at more statistics.

Do you know that when compared to the other high-income countries, Singapore has the one of the highest pupil-teacher ratio (PTR) in primary education (Chart 9)? This means that if you look at Sweden, for example, there is one teacher for every 9 pupils. However, in Singapore, there is one teacher for every 17 pupils – which means teachers are more stretched in Singapore. Does this has anything to do with how Singapore spends the least on primary education?

Singapore also has one of the highest PTR in secondary education (Chart 10). In Singapore, there is one teacher to 15 pupils, whereas in some of the other countries, there is one teacher to 10 pupils. Again, is this because of the low expenditure on secondary education?

The PAP government goes on to say that, “a PTR of 18 in our primary schools does not mean that our class sizes are 18 in our primary schools – it simply means that we have one teacher for every 18 students”. They add that, “The same PTR can result in different class sizes – as it depends on how we deploy our teachers.” The government goes on to say that, “if we choose to deploy our teachers in classes of 18 students each, it would imply that all our teachers would have to be teaching a class all the time”. They claim that, “This is clearly not tenable.”

You see, what’s the point of saying that we have a PTR of 18 in primary schools when each class doesn’t actually have 18 students? It is very different when each class actually has 30 to 40 students – which is more than twice the PTR of 18. The amount of attention that the teacher can give to each student is thus much reduced.

The question we have to ask is, what effect does this have on our education system? What does it mean when we spend so low on primary and secondary education? How will that affect the progression of our students?

As such, when you compare our primary school students’ progression to secondary school, what is shocking is that Singapore actually has the lowest proportion of primary school students who actually progress onto secondary school (Chart 12)!

The advantaged schools are also more likely to have a higher proportion of teachers with university-level education. They are also more likely to have a higher quality of educational resources (Chart 14).

In fact, if we adjust the PISA reading performance for the socio-economic profile, you can see that the PISA score for Singapore would have the greatest improvement (Chart 15) – which shows that we probably have one of the highest inequalities.

So, PM Lee might have said that, “I believe we can make every school a good school and we have done a lot of that to ensure that every school provides a good education for the students. We give them the resources, we give them the good teachers, we emphasise values and we have made a lot of progress towards this goal.”

But is this the case? The “advantaged schools” are able to receive more and better resources and have better teachers. As such, this has caused the standards between the schools to have huge variations.

PM Lee might say that, “we value every child and that we want to give every person the best possible chance to start off well in life”. But has this been the case?

It is all well to say that they believe that every school should be a “good school”, but is this just lip service? Clearly, the statistics are showing vast differences in the standards between our schools. Clearly, not every school is given adequate resources to become a “good school”.

In fact, we have to question – Singapore has a very low level of investment in our primary and secondary education. Is this also the reason why our schools have become so unequal? Are resources unevenly distributed such that “advantaged schools” are able to get ahead with more investment? Should the PAP government increase its financial investment into our primary and secondary schools?

Perhaps let me take you through a few more statistics to let you have a better understanding of how unequal our education system is in Singapore.

So, if 200 local polytechnic graduates were admitted to these courses over ten years, this means that on average, about 20 local polytechnic graduates were admitted every year. Of the 874 students who were admitted, the local polytechnic graduates would thus represent only 2% of the total enrollment (Chart 18)!

Is our education system equal then? Students from “advantaged schools” are almost guaranteed a pathway to “success” whereas the fate of other students are unclear. And if you are from a polytechnic, chances are very slim. If it’s already so slim for a polytechnic student, you can imagine what the chances are for a student from the ITE.

Indeed, the household sizes of the students from the “advantaged schools” would also give you a very good indication as to the inequality in our education system.

PM Lee had said at the National Day Rally 2013 that, “we value every child and that we want to give every person the best possible chance to start off well in life.” He had also said that, “I believe we can make every school a good school and we have done a lot of that to ensure that every school provides a good education for the students. We give them the resources, we give them the good teachers, we emphasise values and we have made a lot of progress towards this goal.”

He had said that the PAP government should not breed elitism because, “Outstanding students must always be able to make it to the top to get into these institutions and you cannot have a closed, self-perpetuating elite.”

But, from the statistics that we have seen so far, is what PM Lee saying true? Does the PAP government truly doesn’t believe in promoting a “closed, self-perpetuating elite”?

More importantly, is the Singapore education system equal and do all our children really have a equal start in school, and most importantly, in life? Are some of our students damned to a certain way of life, precisely because of the education system in Singapore?

PM Lee might have said that, “I think it is also good that we have top schools nationally, schools which are acknowledged as outstanding, so long as we keep our system open. The system has to be open, meaning there cannot be barriers to entry.”

But what do you think? Is Singapore’s education system open? Or is our education system unequal?

If 60% of the polytechnics and ITE students can hardly make it to the public universities and the rest have have to enter private education organisations, with only 30% in the junior colleges who have the most likely chance of entering the public universities, how equal or “open” is our education system when it favours only 30% of the students in Singaporeans, while the rest of the 70% would be disadvantaged by the system (Chart 27)?

How is every school a “good school” and how equal or “open” is our education system when the education system is already structured to marginalise the large proportion of Singaporeans?

If the PAP government is sincere in creating an education system which is open and ensures that all schools are “good schools”, is this the way to do so? It is one thing to say that they want all schools to be “good schools”, yet say that even if you are in a “good school”, you might not be good enough to enter the local public universities. This is as well as saying these schools are not good enough.

Quite certainly, the PAP’s pronouncement of all schools being “good schools” cannot be backed up by how unequal and unfair the education system in Singapore evidentlyis, and only further entrenches the inequality in Singapore. Such a system that baits our students and Singaporeans into discriminated pathways early in life should be treated with abhor and Singaporeans must rise up and stand up against such discrimination and inequality.

*****

If you are inspired to want to discuss more about how we can change the education system in Singapore, you can join other Singaporeans at this upcoming workshop to design solutions to make the education system more equal in Singapore.